FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2106737782> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2106737782 endingPage "S438" @default.
• W2106737782 startingPage "S437" @default.
• W2106737782 abstract "To further examine the role of research quality as determined by the ASRM review process in designation for oral or poster presentations. Consistent with our prior analyses, we hypothesize that abstracts selected for oral presentation will consist of higher quality research defined by evidence-based medicine. Retrospective statistical comparison of published abstracts (non-clinical). Data were collected from 913 abstracts published in the Program Supplement for the 60th Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, PA from October 16-20, 2004. We investigated parameters which are commonly provided in published abstracts and are believed to reflect the quality of research and relevance to the expected audience. Specifically, the following data were retrieved: animal or human research, statistical significance of the findings, and level of evidence for human research as defined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for Evidence-based Medicine. Abstracts were assigned to a Level I, II-1, II-2, II-3, or III by study design when explicitly described. Abstracts that were withdrawn or that did not specifically provide these data were excluded from the Chi-Square statistical analysis. Animal research was uniquely classified as being randomized, with a placebo or unexposed control (I), controlled without a placebo group (II), or as uncontrolled experimental designs or observational studies (III). Fourteen abstracts were withdrawn, leaving 899 abstracts for review. Of these, 336 (37%), and 563 (63%), were orals and posters, respectively. Human studies comprised (91%) and (89%) of abstracts selected for orals and posters, respectively and this distribution was not statistically different. Overall, 54% (180/334)of orals and 50 % (284/563)of posters, reported statistically significant findings (p< 0.05). Of note, 373 (41%) abstracts were excluded from this analysis because they lacked a comparison group or failed to report statistical results. Specifically in human studies, statistically significant findings were distributed at 86% (170/198), and 78% (255/329) for oral and posters, respectively (p<0.025). Similarly, 280 (35%) human abstracts were eliminated from analysis for incomplete statistical information. Comparison of the distribution of human abstracts by Level of Evidence reveals a significant difference in favor of better quality in abstracts selected for oral presentations (p<0.01). These findings are consistent with our prior analysis from ASRM 2003. Distribution of animal studies by level I, II, or III did not reveal significant differences for orals and posters. However, 28% (73/336) of orals and 19% (107/563) of posters failed to specifically define their study design. The findings of this study reveal that the ASRM review and assignment process is impartial to animal vs.human research, but preferentially selects research designs for oral presentation with favored levels of evidence and those with statistically significant results. For future meetings, it is recommended that reviewers demand adherence to abstract format guidelines provided on the ASRM website. Further, a mandate for clarity of study design would aid readers in assessing clinical value of human research. This may be best accomplished by requesting authors to designate their research by use of the ACOG endorsed U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for Evidence-Based Medicine categories." @default.
• W2106737782 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2106737782 creator A5015592766 @default.
• W2106737782 date "2005-09-01" @default.
• W2106737782 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2106737782 title "Research Quality at ASRM: Beyond “Oral vs. Poster.”" @default.
• W2106737782 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.1144" @default.
• W2106737782 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2106737782 type Work @default.
• W2106737782 sameAs 2106737782 @default.
• W2106737782 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2106737782 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2106737782 hasAuthorship W2106737782A5015592766 @default.
• W2106737782 hasBestOaLocation W21067377821 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C23131810 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C27081682 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C2777601897 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C2779318504 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C2986587452 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C2992130261 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C3018263421 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C65409693 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C105795698 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C111472728 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C126322002 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C138885662 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C141071460 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C142724271 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C15744967 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C168563851 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C188147891 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C19527891 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C204787440 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C23131810 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C27081682 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C2777601897 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C2779318504 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C2779530757 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C2986587452 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C2992130261 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C3018263421 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C33923547 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C512399662 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C65409693 @default.
• W2106737782 hasConceptScore W2106737782C71924100 @default.
• W2106737782 hasLocation W21067377821 @default.
• W2106737782 hasOpenAccess W2106737782 @default.
• W2106737782 hasPrimaryLocation W21067377821 @default.
• W2106737782 hasRelatedWork W1972783815 @default.
• W2106737782 hasRelatedWork W2031596352 @default.
• W2106737782 hasRelatedWork W2045591660 @default.
• W2106737782 hasRelatedWork W2077895841 @default.
• W2106737782 hasRelatedWork W2463353327 @default.
• W2106737782 hasRelatedWork W2550575390 @default.
• W2106737782 hasRelatedWork W2982557083 @default.
• W2106737782 hasRelatedWork W3035658224 @default.
• W2106737782 hasRelatedWork W4281645587 @default.
• W2106737782 hasRelatedWork W4306632388 @default.
• W2106737782 hasVolume "84" @default.
• W2106737782 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2106737782 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2106737782 magId "2106737782" @default.
• W2106737782 workType "article" @default.